Why Don't People Like Turbos?

how do I read this graph?

Y-axis is a load indicator, here compression pressure, X-Axis is rpm.
The numbers and potato shaped circles indicate the efficiency in gramms of fuel needed to create a killowatthour of energy.
The lower, the better.

In this engine xour best efficiency is at 2200rpm and 15 bars of copression pressure.
The turbo spools up at extremely low rpm on this engine, full MAP is available @ 1750rpm, where this engine is verry efficient.

FACT
There is no need really for turbo passenger cars. If you take a look at the last decade of car tech, the NA motor has made some serious advances. Turbos are great for higher end cars were customers are paying for the added performance but otherwise its really just not neeeded in passanger cars.

OPINION
Besides, turbo cars really arent that fun to drive. Everyone will argue with me but until you drive a vehicle with a large turbo its just isnt that fun compared to a high rev healthy NA motor. Response and instant power are what NA cars are all about and thats what makes driving fun, turbos are fun on highway rolls only.

>n/a tend to have better noise

youtu.be/nENIoylXTg8

>turbos are much less reliable than a s/c car
nice opinion, retard

6 M I L E S
I
L
E
S

Because of dumb EPA emission laws, makers are now redoing all their engines to have lower displacement then to make up for the horsepower and torque lost they use a turbo. This allows them to save gas and keep the power about the same. This is clearly evident with the new 2016 and 2017 Honda Civic's. The 2015 and previous years used to have a 1.8L engine but the new ones are 1.4L and have a turbo which actually gives them more power

Sidi/gdi and yeah >Agreed

>There is no need really for turbo passenger cars
You could power them with a lower powered NA engine of the same displacement to archive the same fuel economy.
But people don´t want to drive cars with no power at all, so these engines get boosted to be able to produce a semi decent amount of power.

To show a example:
compare the 1R-FE and the 1.0L ecoboost
both are 1.0l 3cylinder econobox engine, both get similar efficiency at cruising speed, but the ecoboost has double the power and much more torque.

I assume we're talking about petrol/gas here. Turbos are pretty much essential on diesel engines to give them a worthwhile powerband.

They can improve fuel economy but to really get the benefits you need water injection like the M4 GTS so it doesn't run rich to keep the pistons from melting.

Yeah na and sc is so reliable that's why all the top lmp teams are running supercharged or na v8s
Fool. Turbo is god tier for reliability power and efficiency. Motorsports don't lie

Turbos are also extremely weight efficient, you gain a lot of power without adding a lot of weight to a car.

Its primarily why a lot of teams are now doing v6's with turbos because v8's are a lot heavier. You can use a v6, add a turbo, get the same or better power as a v8 and weight less

The problem (outside of the morons that are just stuck in the past) is two fold.

For one, turbos are not as reliable as one would hope due to their proliferation. The technology behind them is still playing catch up to superchargers in terms of raw output. They still have too many issues and when things go bad, they go catastrophically bad.

The second part is the reason turbos have become so popular. They primarily act as a means to add power to smaller engines. This is a stupid concept. Since the dawn of fucking ICE there has been one golden rule:

There is no replacement for displacement.

The smaller your engine, the less potential you have. Granted, this comes with diminishing returns. After all, a 582ci big block may be capable of pushing 1500hp, but it still weighs as much as a Yugo.

In terms of relative power to weight, however, a moderate displacement V8 is going to rape the competition in terms of power, durability, reliability, and modability.

So, while a 1.8L I4 with a 40mm turbo may be capable of 200hp and 30mpg, a S/C 6.2L V8 can get 25mpg and still be capable of 200mph.

Why do you think one has a poor reception over the other?

>So, while a 1.8L I4 with a 40mm turbo may be capable of 200hp and 30mpg, a S/C 6.2L V8 can get 25mpg and still be capable of 200mph.
>Why do you think one has a poor reception over the other?
because its not about power, speed or any of that. Its not even about displacement, its about meeting retarded US emissions laws. The US is more politically active in "being emissions friendly" than being fucking efficient with gasoline. Use less gasoline which would totally yield good emissions but the EPA doesn't give a fuck. Its why you see such a mass influx of low displacement, turbo'd engines that produce the same power as their former NA engines.

like said, the 1.4L engine with a turbo produces as much if not a little more power and torque as the old 1.8L. Honda is gonna do it again with the 2017 Civic Si with instead of using their old 2.4L engine, they're using a 1.5L engine then putting a turbo in it. According to honda, the 1.5L with a turbo makes more power than the 2.4L NA

I like turbos. I like turbos a lot.

In fact, every car should have an inline 4 turbocharged engine. Some can be bigger or smaller, but this basic engine could power everything while being simple and easy to work on.

For fun, I muck around with a turbo wankel.

3.5 ecoboost weighs more than Fords own 5.0

which has better power:weight?

>an anecdote
Shiggy

>Motorsports
they are only reliable there because they receive constant maintenance.

Stop comparing $100k race engines to the ones found in $30k cars...

>anecdote
It was fucking documented you dolt

I didn't, ford isn't the only one doing this you know

Turbo is always better than a Supercharger or more displacement for making power

Take a junkyard 4.8 vortec
Two Chinese truck turbos
1000hp+ easy as fuck and reliably for less than 5k in parts including the engine
Do that with a Supercharger or an na build for near the same cost or level of ease
You can't. Literally impossible to match it.

Now stop posting conjecture and get fucking educated
Turbos are the be all end all. End of story.

>sub 2l turbo vs 6.2l supercharged
Now I see you are just plain desperate and cannot use logical or relevant examples to try and make a point.

Stop posting any time, thanks!

You said the turbo power plants are lighter, they're not - nice try deflecting my comment

>turbos are fun on highway rolls only.
I know this was opinion but some modern turbos, twin scroll or twin turbo are very responsive and have immediate gittyup.

>both are 1.0l 3cylinder econobox engine, both get similar efficiency at cruising speed, but the ecoboost has double the power and much more torque.

Thats great, but turbo applications cost more to start making as well as cost more to maintain. The customer is also stuck with using higher octane gas to benefit from the perforamance the turbo has to offer generally, so this is another cost. The manufactor is trying to create a car that is the cheapest and most effecient. You can choose effeinency and pay more with a turbo, or the cheaper NA route and pay less.
Not all people want a sporty ride, some people want your run of the mill car with a nice warranty and no frills.

>I assume we're talking about petrol/gas here
Yup, just normal passanger cars, not your "coal burner" trucks. I love me some holset turbos.

>need water injection
Yo, 2017 called. Told me to tell you their is such thing as tuning, EMS, higher octane gas, e85, etc.

what is hyperbole, in general turbos are used because they're light for the power they add

>1 unit

A 1,8L turbo I4 with only 200hpisn´t going to be that inefficient, usually you will get way better fuel economy than 30mpg.
Usually it should be around 35-40, depending on the vehicle.

If we talk about city driving, the V-8 gets even worse...

Water injection is better than e85

>The customer is also stuck with using higher octane gas to benefit from the perforamance the turbo has to offer generally
the new civics that have turbos take regular 87, they don't need premium

>So, while a 1.8L I4 with a 40mm turbo may be capable of 200hp and 30mpg, a S/C 6.2L V8 can get 25mpg and still be capable of 200mph.

These engines are... differently classed.

I'd like to see you explaining to the execs why your economy car weighs 3600 lbs and requires 19" wheels to clear the brakes.

high octane fuel is used to prevent knocking and premature ignition. This is because compressing gasses increases their temperature and its easy to hit the flash point under those conditions

Its called a knock sensor champ, you can run whatever the hell you want in it and the ECU will advance/retard timing as needed. Add 91 octane and it will get more power.

Most people don´t want a car wich is just comfy and has no power.
Even normies care about that.

Also premium costs only like 3 cents more per litre, the better fuel economy cancels that out, if the engine even needs that much octane.

Also a 1KR-FE only has 68 hp, the 1,0L ecoboost ranges from 101 hp to 140 hp.

You don't need a knock sensor, you just use higher octane fuel to stop it

The ECU can't tell what octane you're using

>the ECU can't tell what octane you're using

You can't be this retarded

Your a retard. Are you talking a very old antiquated motor maybe? my shit is OBD2 and i know it will pull timing if i put in octane that is not recommended. How do i know? Because i have a fucking engine management system and see the changes live. Any questions?

The ECU can prevent knocking with advanced ignition timing and/or lower boost.
You shouldn´t run a engine with to low octane, since you will lose fuel economy and power.

The ECU can tell if the fuel has to low octane rating, since it can sense knocking.

thank you for calling this shit out omg frusterating

You're a retard. All of the octane in the world does nothing to reduce operating temperatures.

The current strategy to avoid reaching excessive combustion temperatures is to run rich which allows for some of the heat to be absorbed into unburned fuel.

E85 will provide better cooling but the energy density is trash compared to straight gasoline.

Water injection means you don't need to run rich at full throttle. Instead you can inject water to protect the engine from overheating and it will cool the engine.

You can't tune well enough to get the same effect without water injection. OEMs just go without water injection because normies don't want to remember to keep a few jugs of distilled water in the trunk.

So the ECU is going to lower compression to stop the pressure spike that causes the fuel to flash?

The ECU only knows your octane isn't high enough if there is knocking. It can't tell what octane it was. Seriously thats a simple and true statement.

the new civics have turbos that don't need higher octane fuel.

If it's programmed for 87 and not to take advantage of higher octane you will not get any more HP. Using a knock sensor will only stop an engine from knocking if too low an octane is used. It will do this with timing, fuel amount, valve timing or open a waste gate.

If Honda recommends 87 it is highly unlikely the ECU is programmed to take advantage of higher octane unless the ECU is monitering each cylinders pressure and temp as apposed to just sending knock.

A knock sensor is reactive: I.e. "oh shit we have detonation do something"

>a modified turbo car sounds good!

WHO WOULD HAVE KNOWN!

The ECU can process whatever signal it gets. If it gets a signal that there is kicking it k OWS the engine is knocking, not why it's knocking. Same goes with cylinder ionization. It knows what's happening. Not why. It has no idea what the octane level of your fuel is.

>So the ECU is going to lower compression to stop the pressure spike that causes the fuel to flash?
Nope, it lowers the boost and/or changes the ignition time to a verry early point to not compress to much before ignition.

>The ECU only knows your octane isn't high enough if there is knocking. It can't tell what octane it was.
It can tell if you use to low octane, wich was my point.
It doen´t matter if your ECU can calculate the exact octane rating uf your fuel, it only needs to know if it is to low.

>the new civics have turbos that don't need higher octane fuel.
I didn´t say anything against that, yo seem to confuse me with another user.

It can tell if your octane rating is lower than a certain number, since knocking only occures with fuel worse than xx octane in your engine.

However your 91 octane engine/ECU can´t tell if it uses 91 or 93 octane.
It only knows if it is low enough to cause detonation or knocking.

>since knocking only occures with fuel worse than xx octane in your engine.
knocking occurs when lower octane gasoline pre ignites which are micro explosions in your cylinder before it compresses fully. Higher octane gas has a higher flash point.

Are you that GTR fanboy posting a couple months ago?

This image has been around like all year
And the 6 miles meme for even longer
Yes same person

Indeed, the point at wich the gas detonates or even preignites is what octane rating is about.

If your engine gets a fuel with less than the needed octane rating, it will have detonations and preignition untill the ECU steps in and sacrifies performance and milage for engine life.

I take the 4cyL 2.3L with 320HP and 545NM over the V8 5.0L with 435HP and 542Nm in the Mustang GT any day since the V8 cost 6x more to insure than the 4cyl.

its not just fuel octane.
if air entering the chamber is too hot it will pre-detonate and knock simply from the compression

this is why smaller pulleys on superchargers are generally not a great idea if not intercooled. they increase temps dramatically

>Add power
Often unpredictably due to turbo lag
>improve economy
A tiny engine improves economy. Then turbos get slapped on so it can still pass people on the highway. Fuel consumption under boost is higher. More air = more fuel. Midsized NA engines are most likely the best thing for rear world economy, and if you want to use less fuel, add an electric motor.
>allow for a smaller engine
True
>why
They aren't, boomers are just mad that civics can go faster than camaros now

>the better fuel economy cancels that out
>if the engine even needs that much octane

If your engine doesn't need higher octane there's no benefit.

People like turbos. Only Americans don't. We eurofags love 'em like we love v8 or r5. Fanboys never like other things

>15 bars
That ain't right.

Turbochargers add complexity and possible failure points. For an OEM that's a problem. For the average consumer that's also a problem.

Consider this counter argument, however...

BWWAAAAOOOOOOOOR PSCH-CH-CH-CH-CHWWW

Nigga life begins at 200psi and above

that graph looks like it's based on a diesel engine

Not 15 bar manifold pressure, 15 bar at top dead center.

Car noob here, but I think I know why.

NA Engines normallu have more flat torque curves, meaning their are no sudden jumps of power. The torque curve steadily rises until it levels off, and with VVT low end torque on hot cammed NA engines make them extremely drivable.

Turbochargers take time to spool up, and some turbo engines arent as reliable as NA engines. They also have a huge sudden jump in torque as the turbo spools and hits peak torque. From there, it rises normally and then falls. So daily drivability is kind bad, no torque until the turbo spools and from there its a lot of torque. Turbo lag sucks as well, but a lot of modern cars with smaller turbos spool up fast so its not really a problem unless you drive an 80's turbo car.

because its an expensive, relatively fragile component that requires a shitload of ancillary systems in order to integrate.

Why is it that when someone starts a sentence with "FACT" I know it's going to be stupid fucking statement.

>NA engines have a more flat torque curve
Not realy, usually turbos have a almost constant torque from about 2000rpm up to their maximum power.

>Turbochargers take time to spool up
Usually you dont rev it under about 1500 rpm, so you won´t notice any turbo lag anyway.

>huge sudden jump in torque as the turbo spools and hits peak torque
Not on stock engines, if you want to get more power out of your engine with a bigger turbo, you would have a turbo lag as you described.

Turbos may break, but so does any part of your engine.
Usually they last about as long as the engine if you do your oilchanges and don´t go full throttly with cold oil.

I love the way he bounces on his toes.
You can tell instantly this guy is an engineer and not a marketing/PR faggot.

Huh, small world.

youtube.com/watch?v=2E0tajBP8VI

>eco
>boost
pick one and only one

Turbo spool RPM has nothing to do with it.

People are idiots and forget that turbo boost is a product of THROTTLE opening. The RPM at which the turbo "activates" is just how "easy" it is to make that boost.

Example:

Driving in 5th at 75MPH, RPM is 3000, turbo spools at 3000. The turbo doesn't "activate" until I push the throttle to where boost pressure begins to build. It's easy to keep the car in negative pressure/vacuum. However, some cars have trouble maintaining speed without entering boost because more throttle needs to be applied to keep at speed. So you wind up in boost because instead of 10% throttle, you need 25% which enters boost.

This video makes no sense, the peak engine efficiency of a turbo and naturaly aspirated engine are pretty close, but the turbo is way more efficient in the low power area, wich you use most of the time while keeping a constant speed or in the city.

TL;DR
When you drive normal the turbo needs less fuel,
when you drive like a race there is no difference.

Entering boost doesn´t lower the engine efficiency, it increases it.
As pointed out in where the turbo has full boost at 1700 rpm and the peak efficiency is at 2200 rpm, both with pretty much full throttle.

Fuel economy is not necessarily a product of engine size/displacement. There's a big difference between making power efficiently and using fuel efficiently.

>Fuel economy is not necessarily a product of engine size/displacement. There's a big difference between making power efficiently and using fuel efficiently.
Indeed, aerodynomic drag, tires etc. usually matter more than the engine allone.
But if you have the same car with different engines, the engine efficiency at the power you need is the only significant factor, weight might be a minor factor to.

>C5 Corvette gets 30MPG highway
>5.7L V8

>Miata gets 30MPG highway
>1.8L I4

where is your god now?

I didn´t say it is the specific output or engine sieze, but the engine efficieny at low power.

MX-5 gets 30mpg
Corvette C5 gets 22